John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It seems like hours since I signalled my intention to speak in this debate, but I am glad to have the opportunity to make a few comments. Many of the amendments addressed in this group revolve around section 9 of the legislation. I refer to my comments on Second Stage, which I premised on a belief that everyone shares, which is that doctors ultimately need the freedom to act in emergency situations. Everyone on each side of the debate has emphasised that point over a number of months. I certainly believe it. The Bill is a realistic solution considering the three parameters facing the Government, which I outlined in my speech on Second Stage. The three parameters are Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution, the Supreme Court decision of 1992 and the A, B and C v. Ireland judgment.

During my speech on Second Stage, I raised three principal issues I wanted the Minister to address. That is why I supported the Bill on Second Stage. I asked him to examine section 15 and the review mechanism. I did not believe that what was proposed was strong enough, and changes have been made in that area. On several occasions, particularly at party meetings, I asked him about the need to amend sections 7, 8 and 9 to reflect the best available clinical practice. Those amendments are included in what we are discussing tonight. The third principal point I raised with him was the issue of gestational limits. I have listened to the discussion on both sides of the House about the matter. Over the course of the past few months, I have met a number of women who came forward, having been in emergency situations and having received the treatment they needed. Putting a limit on what is a constitutional right as outlined by the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, and the advice provided by the Attorney General is probably repugnant to the Constitution. I understand that explanation. While I have misgivings, I will support the legislation.

My remaining misgiving has not be referred to in most of the debate this evening. It was raised on Second Stage and concerns vindicating the legal right under Article 40.3.3° to legal representation for the unborn. I have not heard many speakers, if any, refer to it. The Minister might outline his thinking on that issue before the discussion finishes tonight.

Like many colleagues, I consulted widely among my circle of friends and in my constituency on the Bill. I have been particularly struck by the number of people who have come forward with their own stories and views. They came forward unsolicited and were not part of any group. The overwhelming consensus has been that I should support the Bill. It is a classic situation for a politician to face. He or she might have personal misgivings but be asked by the vast majority of the people, who he or she knows and who are identifiable, to follow a certain course of action. I know that my decision will not please everybody. A very dear friend with whom I discussed the matter last night was particularly upset when I indicated how my views on the matter were moving. I am particularly disappointed with the way our political system works and that many Members, for whom I have the greatest regard and who find themselves on a different side to me, will face expulsion from political parties for expressing their views. The whip system that is employed in this country, which is more severe than anywhere else, has not served the country well. One need not look too far back into our past to see that. People should not be cast aside for giving a true reflection of what they believe.

I have thought very deeply about section 9 over the last number of months and made up my mind. The decision I am making tonight reflects a position I adopted two months ago. I have changed my mind on a number of occasions since. Psychiatrists are more appropriate persons than lawyers, judges or politicians to make judgments on matters of mental health. I am conscious of people thinking in legal terms of the proportionality test and of those who consider that where an abortion is carried out for someone expressing serious suicidal thoughts, it is the ultimate end of a life before it has really begun. I have been trying to weigh over the last few months that test and the fact that mental health issues and suicide are a real cause of death and threat to people's lives in this country. No more than anyone else, I have been affected. We in the House have been affected. It is real. The difficulty is that it is almost intangible and very difficult to measure. I attended the six days of committee hearings at which psychiatrists expressed views to that effect. Can we decide in legislation that suicide does not represent a real threat? We cannot.

The debate in the House this evening has been measured and people have expressed their views freely and openly. Despite what might be written and said elsewhere, I, for one, have not felt myself under any undue influence on the matter. I have sought clarification at every point and managed to get it on most issues. I resent deeply some of the views expressed from members of my own Government over the past few months, though not in the debate tonight. They have twisted the provisions of the Fine Gael platform at the last election and the terms of the programme for Government. The programme for Government committed the Government to establish an expert group. I have heard several Cabinet Ministers say that it committed to legislation. The expert group outlined a number of options, one of which was legislation followed by regulation, which is the option the Government chose. The idea that it was the only option is simply not true. It has been said on several occasions. People should not twist what is written to suit their own agenda.

I have thought for a long time about what I would ultimately do and did not announce my decision until now as I wanted to see if the Minister would adopt some of the amendments I suggested. He has. I have a significant misgiving about the issue of legal representation and vindicating the rights of the unborn. Many lawyers with whom I have consulted and who support much more liberal legislation in this area, believe that when that is challenged, it may be found to be unconstitutional. It is my most significant outstanding issue with the legislation. The legislation is a realistic solution to the position the Government was in once the decision to introduce legislation was made and it meets the need to balance the Constitution with the Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights judgments. For that reason, I support it.

See this speech in context